Labor borne of human hands

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

 

As the second wave of Covid-19 hits the shores of many countries around the world, it comes with the increasing paranoia that human labor is becoming redundant if not obsolete. This is owed to the prevalence of automated services which was highlighted by the string of lockdowns that was imposed to quell the unabated spread of the virus.

Are robots about to replace the workforce in the skeins of society such that human labor now tiptoes on the ridges of extinction?

To cite some instances, helicopter-taxis are taking off in the US with initial flights maneuvered by human pilots but designed to eventually convey passengers in autopilot mode. Amazon is delivering orders at penthouses through drones hovering atop tall buildings. Apple’s Smart Watch can diagnose ailments and recommend emergency medical procedures on its own.  And even in less sophisticated businesses such as coffee shops, automated machines can brew that perfect espresso to be served either hot or cold and even whipped with cream on top.

Pursuant to the “doctrine of management prerogative,” companies have the right to scale-down their operations or to replace their workers with automated services and thus streamline their human resources. To some extent, hiring on a contractual basis is also allowed by the Labor Code and jurisprudence.

Fundamentally, the employer-employee relationship is founded on a contract that is undergirded by both parties’ mutual assent to its terms and conditions. For a time, particularly under the auspices of the laissez-faire policy, what governs work relations is what is stated in the contract of employment. In the early case of Lochner v. New York (1905), where not only child labor was exploited by bakeries but concerns about hostile working conditions and unlimited hours were sought to be regulated by the government, the US Supreme Court ruled that the “due process clause” of the Constitution prohibits any impingement on contracts such that whatever the employer and the employee had agreed on, regulators must not interfere with.

But in the subsequent case of Miller v. Oregon (1908), the Court was convinced with factual evidence suffused with incontrovertible data that punishing working conditions severely impacted on women worker’s capability for childbearing and thus State regulation was upheld to scale their shifts down.

In Philippine jurisdiction, the laissez-faire doctrine had already been shunned by no less than, and as early as, the 1935 Constitution. It was held in an early case that “What is more, to erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that the concept of laissez-faire was rejected. It entrusted to our government the responsibility of coping with social and economic problems with the commensurate power of control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live up to its commitment to promote the general welfare through state action. No constitutional objection to regulatory measures adversely affecting property rights, especially so when public safety is the aim, is likely to be heeded, unless of course on the clearest and most satisfactory proof of invasion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. On such a showing, there may be a declaration of nullity, but not because the laissez-faire principle was disregarded but because the due process, equal protection, or non-impairment guarantees would call for vindication.

To repeat, our Constitution which took effect in 1935 erased whatever doubts there might be on that score. Its philosophy is a repudiation of laissez-faire. (ROMEO F. EDU, in his capacity as Land Transportation Commissioner v. HON. VICENTE G. ERICTA in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Br. XVIII, Quezon City, and TEDDY C. GALO, G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970).

It is now therefore beyond doubt that the government can impose limits on work conditions thereby reducing considerably the sphere known as “management prerogative”. What is tricky is how far can companies go with their plans of declaring positions in their workforce as superfluous or redundant in their desire to shift to automation.

What this presages is that labor courts will surely be flooded with controversies arising from this legal issue which inextricably entwines  with the moral one: that of upholding the value of human labor and dignity- the latter with far-reaching implications in a world heavily-infested with Covid-19.

So are robots the functional equivalent of human workers in almost every endeavor, if not the better substitutes?

Taking the case of the barista who stands to be replaced by a vending machine that can dispense coffee just the same, this columnist who is a person helplessly dependent on coffee every morning (and even in the afternoon and at night too),  that coffee which is first scooped from a container with aroma and then the beans freshly-ground to refinement and brewed under the watchful eyes of the barista that then spews on a mug handed over with a smile underneath the face mask, would certainly smell and taste far better than an accurately but robotically concocted cup. When the lockdown was at a zenith, companies providing phone or internet services  had replaced people with answering machines that may have indeed replied to inquiries with satisfactory information but somehow did not resonate.  Not only that, but even the very hiring process for job positions that can only be performed by humans was also delegated to algorithms for vetting, but this did not turn out to be a good idea as eye-contact in interviews proved to be the more reliable determinant of a good worker.

These are but a few of the many instances when the human touch cannot be replaced by an Android.  Yes, human error and even shenanigans may count as points against the preference of the man or woman as worker but these occasional aberrant behavior are surely far outweighed by the benefits that human work can give. Besides, machines conk out on us too. And while we were born with imperfections and frailties they do not discount the reality that we are products of the labor of love even as our mother’s cooking gets its distinctive taste from the love she sprinkles in every dish.

The destiny of human labor hangs in the balance especially with the precariousness of industries brought about by the raging pandemic. The precision and consistency of the machine will always be there as a constant temptation to shift from manual to automation.

But life is never about mechanistic living.

Labore Et Honore is a latin maxim which means “labor and honor”. The two do not only rhyme or chime, but they also hold together the dignity and values that compose man.

Labor is honor when the cup is served with human hands.

 

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).